In which I agree with Howard Kurtz

In the abstract, government regulation sounds onerous. But when an offshore rig explodes, people want to know why the regulators weren't doing their jobs.

Maybe Obama is going too far. This is a debate we need to have. This is a debate the media need to have, rather than just playing the video of Joe Barton embarrassing himself.

John Aravosis of Americablog told me in a conversation the other day that such coverage might be too "boring," too Atlantic Monthly, for most Americans. I disagree. If we can't find a way to make such fundamental issues compelling, we ought to find another line of work.

It's so nice to see Kurtz come around to such a reasonable position, I won't bother to dredge up examples of Kurtz defending media coverage that is sensational rather than substantive. I will, however, keep this in mind for the next time he defends lousy coverage that fails to substantively address fundamental issues …

On December 7, President-elect Donald Trump named Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as his pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Media should take note of Pruitt’s climate science denial, his deep ties to the energy industries he will be charged with regulating, and his long record of opposition to EPA efforts to reduce air and water pollution and combat climate change.

President-elect Donald Trump has picked -- or considered -- nearly a dozen people who have worked in right-wing media, including talk radio, right-wing news sites, Fox News, and conservative newspapers, to fill his administration. And Trump himself made weekly guest appearances on Fox for a number of years while his vice president used to host a conservative talk radio show.